First of all, you're careering into Fourth Amendment jurisprudence here, and your missing my point. First off, if you want to talk about the 4A, I can point you to the recent SCOTUS decision in the case of Kyllo v. US, the majority opinion written by none other than Antonin Scalia, which upheld a kind of "my home is my castle" standard in terms of 4A privacy. In this case, the court found that the infared imaging and detection of marijuana plants being grown by Kyllo from outside his home by the cops was unconstitutional because it represented an unreasonable 4A search. Again, Scalia wrote the majority opinion (which I wholly agree with), the same Scalia that wrote today's dissent (I haven't read it yet) in Lawrence v. Texas.

You seem to believe that I'm pushing for the right of cops to employ some kind of infared HomoCam to root out homosexuals engaging in sodomy in their apartments. You're missing the point completely. First, in the case of Lawrence the 'fruits basically set the police up to come into their apartment while they were in flagrante dilecto. It was a set-up. The purpose, of course, was to challenge this law.

The point here is that these laws are rarely enforced, and mostly when they are it's for some kind of public sex. It is impossible to enforce these laws in private. I'm sure if you went back through arrest records well into the 19th Century, you'd see that these laws were lightly enforced and applied even then. The purpose these laws serve is to reflect the underlying moral structure of society. This law, and others like it, is saying that the community itself disapproves of homosexual conduct. And rightly so. It's a dangerous, disease-spreading, sexually profligate behavior. And so, basically society is saying that they don't want it happening. Does it still happen, even in the teeth of these laws? Of course. But society expresses it's disapproval of this behavior through the law. And now it can't, because the SCOTUS is more attuned to the opinions of the NYT editorial page than it is to the opinions of the people.

The best way for this law to be 'enforced' is to have the people enforce it themselves by shunning homosexuals. And, by the way, that's why it was passed in the first place. Everyone more or less agreed that homosexuality was wrong, and therefore they decided to formalize that sentiment by passing a law proscribing it. If the mores of society change, then the law gets repealed. Your 4A argument is a red herring because you misunderstand the purpose of this law.

Homosexuals, however, do not misunderstand its purpose. They know all too well what laws like this mean. They want their behavior 'normalized'. And so they want the laws that express social disapproval of their disgusting behavior removed. As Rush Limbaugh always says, "don't listen to what they say; watch what they do." Libertarians seem to be listening to what homosexuals have to say. Dupes.

Well, the part of this I'm most concerned about is that the Court, in its quest to find some means by which to find this law unconstitutional, has now created a precedent by which homosexual marriage can be forced upon the nation. That's why I agree with Justice Thomas' dissent.

The best way for this law to be 'enforced' is to have the people enforce it themselves by shunning homosexuals. And, by the way, that's why it was passed in the first place.

You've got it completely wrong, as usual. If people genuinely shun a certain form of behavior, then it will die out on its own.

For example, the reason Jim Crow laws were passed was not because all whites were prejudiced against blacks -- it was because some whites were not so prejudiced, at least not to the point of rejecting the economic benefits of doing business with blacks.